Precipitous Dropoff!

[Bigpetunia]

No one is a bigger fan of the UConn women than I, and I always expect them to win, no matter who they're playing. But the team we beat last night is SUPPOSED to be the 14th best team in the country, coming into the game with a 5-0 record. The disparity of talent on the floor, no matter which five we had out there at any given time, was ridiculous. Look, I love to see us dominate, but this is terrible for the women's game. Perennially contending for national titles has diminished significance if we're only contending vs. four or five programs...the interest, and the attendance, around the country, will be anemic unless this situation improves. I don't know what the solution is, but top twenty teams, at least, need to demonstrate a greater level of parity for national interest to flourish.

 

[Wonkster]

.
I guess we'll just have to throw a few games then, huh?

 

[arch]

No one is a bigger fan of the UConn women than I, and I always expect them to win, no matter who they're playing. But the team we beat last night is SUPPOSED to be the 14th best team in the country, coming into the game with a 5-0 record. The disparity of talent on the floor, no matter which five we had out there at any given time, was ridiculous. Look, I love to see us dominate, but this is terrible for the women's game. Perennially contending for national titles has diminished significance if we're only contending vs. four or five programs...the interest, and the attendance, around the country, will be anemic unless this situation improves. I don't know what the solution is, but top twenty teams, at least, need to demonstrate a greater level of parity for national interest to flourish.

I don't think your hypotheses holds up. UCLA mens basketball, SEC football to name two examples of the opposite effect of dominant teams actually increasing interest.

 

[Vowelguy]

I don't think your hypotheses holds up. UCLA mens basketball, SEC football to name two examples of the opposite effect of dominant teams actually increasing interest.

SEC football is not really a counterexample, since they're at least competitive with themselves.
I also doubt that the UCLA men were beating top 20 teams by 30+ points on a regular basis.

The lack of competitiveness is a problem -- if UConn fans arent watching the end of games (I am guilty of this), then casual fans sure arent.

 

[chrissaran]

As Geno has always said it's up to the other programs to catch up to UConn, demand what he demands of his players in every practice, on every play.

 

[Tonyc]

Well I watch the game live and tape it and watch it again and again. I love watching them execute. I agree with what Geno said. Other teams need to step it up or continue to get killed by UConn. If the media plays it right, and use UConn as a marketing tool, this could bring more fans into watching womens bb. Yes UConn has alot of the talent but it didnt happen over nite. Other teams need the desire to aspire to be great and not just another ordinary program.

 

[wes33]

It will have to stay bad for our game there is only one Geno and he would not like to be spread around.

 

[Wonkster]

It will have to stay bad for our game there is only one Geno and he would not like to be spread around.

If Geno's line of foods offered Geno Jam, then he could be spread around!

 

[easttexastrash]

The lack of talent past the top 4 or 5 teams does make women's basketball less interesting to many. I love women's basketball and would watch junior high games if they were on TV, but some NCAA games are painful to watch.

 

[msf22b]

I watch games to the end and am particularly interested in whether the foot comes off the pedal.

It's especially interested this year with so much depth and the scramble by Mo Jeff and Kia for example to earn more minutes.

 

[triaddukefan]

.
I guess we'll just have to throw a few games then, huh?

Jan 21 would be a good place to start

 

[alexrgct]

This is a new phenomenon? We are at least a generation away from relative parity in WBB. There are simply not enough good players or good coaches, plus the great players play four years rather than leaving early for the pros. There was a precipitous dropoff between Uconn and everyone else when Uconn was winning 90 in a row, too. At least now there are some teams who can give Uconn a legit game.

 

[alexrgct]

For the record, Purdue has some talented kids who are going to win a lot of games this year. They're just nowhere near UConn's level.

 

[Rayvin56]

I don't know what the solution is, but top twenty teams, at least, need to demonstrate a greater level of parity for national interest to flourish.

I think the level of competition has been been greatly improved during the Geno era DUE to the dominating play of UConn and the top teams. Granted, there is quite a way to go, but the examples set by the great teams is a big part of the solution, IMO.

 

[UcMiami]

Seems to me that WCBB is spreading - Uconn's financial success in the 90's along with TN has lead to a much larger number of colleges taking WCBB seriously and investing both in their programs and in their fan outreach. The expansion of regional/conference sports networks is also creating increasing demand for live programing means that many more games are being telecast than ever before. This has lead to a much more competitive environment in the 5-30 rankings but has yet to truly impact the top 3-4 teams. I expect that to change over the next decade. This is really not that different from the progression in MCBB from the 60's and early 70's

 

[cardfan]

This is a new phenomenon? We are at least a generation away from relative parity in WBB. There are simply not enough good players or good coaches, plus the great players play four years rather than leaving early for the pros. There was a precipitous dropoff between Uconn and everyone else when Uconn was winning 90 in a row, too. At least now there are some teams who can give Uconn a legit game.

We've hit a plateau and the game hasn't grown in 10 years, so what will change in another generation besides lowering the rim, which is a ridiculous notion? Geno and Tara and other top coaches retiring may help, but the number of good players is not going to change. Imho, the number of scholarships needs to be reduced from 15 to 13 or 12 to spread the talent. Volleyball and soccer have the same problem, not enough talent and top talent goes to the same schools.

Recruiting is cyclical for most schools, but not the top ones. The only schools who are coming back to strength over the next few years are Duke and UNC, but they've been there before, so we need the OU's, UCLA, Cal's of the world to get stronger.

My 22 yr old nephew said wcball is boring because it's always the same teams. He is not alone in that opinion, by far. I'm bored and I've been a fan for more than a generation.

 

[Aluminny69]

This is my observation of WCBB. The top teams blow away every one else (usually.) But when the top teams play each other, you usually get a pretty ugly game. I think this is because top teams are not used to playing another team as good as they are. So, all the things that look pretty against lesser teams, all of a sudden don't work. The best example of this phenomenon was the first half of a final four game between UConn and Stanford. Basically, the ugliest basketball ever, and those were arguably the two best teams.

So, while some may enjoy watching UConn destroy teams like Wake Forest and Perdue, keep in mind what you are watching, a mismatch...

 

[cardfan]

This is my observation of WCBB. The top teams blow away every one else (usually.) But when the top teams play each other, you usually get a pretty ugly game. I think this is because top teams are not used to playing another team as good as they are. So, all the things that look pretty against lesser teams, all of a sudden don't work. The best example of this phenomenon was the first half of a final four game between UConn and Stanford. Basically, the ugliest basketball ever, and those were arguably the two best teams.

So, while some may enjoy watching UConn destroy teams like Wake Forest and Perdue, keep in mind what you are watching, a mismatch...

The Butler/Uconn men's game was equally as ugly as the Stanford/UConn game.

 

[EricLA]

As a UCONN fan, I'd love to see UCONN go undefeated for the next 4 years. Why would that be bad for WCBB? Actually I think it would be the opposite - people might tune in just so see if someone can knock UCONN off, and an unprecedented win streak like that would get a ton of attention, just like the 90 game streak did earlier.

Now i'm not saying we will achieve anything like that. And by the way, look at the game attendance of the top 10 teams. In order of home attendance per game, it goes like this...

Tennessee, Louisville, Iowa State, UCONN, ND, Baylor, Purdue, Michigan State, Oklahoma, New Mexico. Also in the top 20 are Texas Tech, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Gonzaga. Now aside from the occasional run to the elite 8, or glory days from the past, ISU, Michigan State, New Mexico, TTU, Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin pretty much have very little going on from a talent standpoint in WCBB.

So the argument that UCONN's success is "bad" for anyone doesn't make sense since it certainly hasn't affected L'ville and ISU who have both surpassed UCONN in attendance.

And Geno got it right - it's up to the rest of WCBB to catch up to UCONN. Problem is, when you have a roster of 10 kids who each legitimately may be in the top 10 in their respective classes (and at least 4 who are in the top 3 of their respective classes), it's hard for ANYONE to keep up with UCONN...

 

[Wonkster]

... some may enjoy watching UConn destroy teams like Wake Forest and Perdue, keep in mind what you are watching, a mismatch...

Don't diss my girls ... I'll tear off your leg!

 

[cardfan]

As a UCONN fan, I'd love to see UCONN go undefeated for the next 4 years. Why would that be bad for WCBB? Actually I think it would be the opposite - people might tune in just so see if someone can knock UCONN off, and an unprecedented win streak like that would get a ton of attention, just like the 90 game streak did earlier.

Now i'm not saying we will achieve anything like that. And by the way, look at the game attendance of the top 10 teams. In order of home attendance per game, it goes like this...

Tennessee, Louisville, Iowa State, UCONN, ND, Baylor, Purdue, Michigan State, Oklahoma, New Mexico. Also in the top 20 are Texas Tech, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Gonzaga. Now aside from the occasional run to the elite 8, or glory days from the past, ISU, Michigan State, New Mexico, TTU, Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin pretty much have very little going on from a talent standpoint in WCBB.

So the argument that UCONN's success is "bad" for anyone doesn't make sense since it certainly hasn't affected L'ville and ISU who have both surpassed UCONN in attendance.

And Geno got it right - it's up to the rest of WCBB to catch up to UCONN. Problem is, when you have a roster of 10 kids who each legitimately may be in the top 10 in their respective classes (and at least 4 who are in the top 3 of their respective classes), it's hard for ANYONE to keep up with UCONN...

Bingo. It's all about getting the top talent.

 

[alexrgct]

We've hit a plateau and the game hasn't grown in 10 years, so what will change in another generation besides lowering the rim, which is a ridiculous notion? Geno and Tara and other top coaches retiring may help, but the number of good players is not going to change. Imho, the number of scholarships needs to be reduced from 15 to 13 or 12 to spread the talent. Volleyball and soccer have the same problem, not enough talent and top talent goes to the same schools.

Recruiting is cyclical for most schools, but not the top ones. The only schools who are coming back to strength over the next few years are Duke and UNC, but they've been there before, so we need the OU's, UCLA, Cal's of the world to get stronger.

My 22 yr old nephew said wcball is boring because it's always the same teams. He is not alone in that opinion, by far. I'm bored and I've been a fan for more than a generation.

Why wouldn't the number of good players change? There needs to be more Angel McCoughtrys and Courtney VanDerSloots. That only happens with quantitatively more girls playing and better coaching at every level. That's a generational shift.

I'd also argue that we have not hit a plateau over the past 10 years. The past few recruiting cycle have brought a different, evolutionary kind of player: taller, more versatile in terms of positions she can play, etc. I don't know that quantitatively the number of elite players has changed, but I think it will lead to a change in the way the woman's game is played. And that in and of itself is progress in my book.

I fail to see how reducing the number of scholarships accomplishes anything. For one thing, a number of coaches, most notably Geno, don't use their allotment as it is. For another, it's not the #14 and #15 kid at an elite program that will result in parity. We would need to distribute the very best players more disparately (i.e., the players who every program will always make room for, so this is unlikely), or like I alluded with Angel and Courtney, there needs to be more late bloomers. That's why the men's game has parity: good coaches at all manner of program, quality players who aren't ranked in the top 10 or anywhere near it, and elite talent bolting for the NBA rather than staying four years.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

I think, as several posters have noted, that the root of the problem
is that there aren't nearly enough talented kids to stock more than
a few programs - as opposed to the abundance of talent in the men's
game that allows programs like Butler and George Mason to
challenge for a national championship.

The only difference that occurs to me is the factor of financial
incentive. For boys, much more than for girls, the possibility of
huge financial rewards down the road may be a significant motivating
factor. Of course, only a tiny fraction of boys will ever make NBA
money, but at least they have the dream.

There may be social factors like girls not wanting to get too involved
in athletics for fear of being categorized as jocks or something like
that - I don't know about that. But clearly, unless greater numbers
of grade school or high school girls get involved in the game in a
serious way, the parity problems are going to persist into the
foreseeable future.

 

[cardfan]

Why wouldn't the number of good players change? There needs to be more Angel McCoughtrys and Courtney VanDerSloots. That only happens with quantitatively more girls playing and better coaching at every level. That's a generational shift.

I'd also argue that we have not hit a plateau over the past 10 years. The past few recruiting cycle have brought a different, evolutionary kind of player: taller, more versatile in terms of positions she can play, etc. I don't know that quantitatively the number of elite players has changed, but I think it will lead to a change in the way the woman's game is played. And that in and of itself is progress in my book.

I fail to see how reducing the number of scholarships accomplishes anything. For one thing, a number of coaches, most notably Geno, don't use their allotment as it is. For another, it's not the #14 and #15 kid at an elite program that will result in parity. We would need to distribute the very best players more disparately (i.e., the players who every program will always make room for, so this is unlikely), or like I alluded with Angel and Courtney, there needs to be more late bloomers. That's why the men's game has parity: good coaches at all manner of program, quality players who aren't ranked in the top 10 or anywhere near it, and elite talent bolting for the NBA rather than staying four years.

There are not enough great players to be spread around. As Geno said, the game has not grown in 10 years. There are good coaches all over the country, but not enough talented players. You give any top coach Geno's talented players and they'd have a lot of success too. He also agrees the number of schoolies should be reduced as it helped create more parity in the men's game when they did it. The schoolies are in 4/5 year cycles, not just year, so having 13 players vs 15 would help spread the talent. Of course, the men's game is more popular and has more parity for a number of reasons so it's apple and oranges to compare them. The truth is, women's bball is a niche sport with limited audience, market and talent.

 

[cardfan]

Why wouldn't the number of good players change? There needs to be more Angel McCoughtrys and Courtney VanDerSloots. That only happens with quantitatively more girls playing and better coaching at every level. That's a generational shift.

Because we haven't seen the number grow in the last 10 years. It's been 2 generations since Title IX and there are a large number of girls playing now (earlier in age and longer) with better coaches, AAU, etc. Not much of that has changed since 20o2, so no reason to see it grow more in 2022.